Google Sued Over Deceptive Search Results

biggles266 writes "Internet goliath Google claims to rank search results by relevance, but the search engine engages in deceptive conduct by selling off the top positions to commercial partners, a Sydney court has heard. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) is taking world-first legal action in the Federal Court against Google Inc over allegedly deceptive conduct related to sponsored links on its websites. The ACCC has brought a two-pronged case against Trading Post and Google — including subsidiaries Google Australia and Google Ireland — for potentially misleading consumers. The consumer watchdog alleges Google does not do enough to differentiate "organic" search results — those ranked by relevance — from sponsored links which appear at the top of the results page."

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Laebshade]

Ok, so they are talking about the "Sponsered Links" section. Well, it's in a beige background, different from the rest of the results. It does say "sponsered links", but granted, that is off to the right of the results.

This is about misleading

[Cracked Pottery]

FTFA, one of the complaints generated involved searches that produced sponsored results that linked to a party with no commercial affiliation to the object of the search. Given that a user understood that the link was sponsored, they might wrongly assume a relationship with the business that does not exist. This could be benign, or damaging to the reputation of the business. It's more complex than whether users know whether a link is advertising or the genuine algorithmic results of the search.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[tomstdenis]

No, the FTA states that selling adwords to COMPETITORS is deceptive. If you read past the first sentence you'll note that a competitor bought adwords including trademarks of a rival and have it link to them instead.

The complaint isn't stating that adwords or sponsored links is deceptive. It's talking about how in this instance it's being abused.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[charleste]

Something similar was already an issue in France (over two years ago) - akin to selling the Versace adword to ISL et. Al. French Court Orders Google to Stop Competing Ad Displays [slashdot.org]. I imagine the same result will follow. I guess it isn't "wrong" until the law says it is, so from a business perspective, why stop doing the same type of thing.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Nazlfrag]

The article skims the details of those involved. The ACCC is one of the few worthwhile government departments, who basically prosecute breaches of consumer rights like false advertising. The Trading Post is the most popular classified ad newspaper and website, of which the majority of ads are for cars and motorbikes. It is very likely that the ACCC will get their way, which probably means the Trading Post gets charged for fraudulently posing as an affiliate or representative of the dealerships. It is far from clear how Google will be affected, but already google.com.au seem to have pulled the sponsored links from the top.

Re:Not-for-profit, my butt!

[Renaissance 2K]

Um... [google.com]

Re:it's legit

[pnuema]

Yes. You can't publish libel, regardless if you're the author or not. Why would copyright or trademark laws be any different?

It's part of the "value" you contribute to society as a publisher that you check facts, authorship, etc. Any jackass can run a printing mill, or website.

Bullshit. You are talking out of your ass.

This [pa-newspaper.org] took all of 3 seconds to find. Granted, may be Penn. specific, but I would be stunned not to find similar laws in other localities. Quote:

Newspaper Liability Under the UTPCPL

The provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law shall not apply to any owner, publisher, printer, agent, or employee of a newspaper or other publication, periodical or circular, who, in good faith and without knowledge of the falsity or deceptive character thereof, publishes, causes to be published or takes part in the publication of such advertisement. (73 P.S. Â201-3)

If Google didn't remove the Ad-word association when asked, that's one thing. Otherwise, I can't see how they are in violation of American law, and if they are in violation of Australian law, I'm amazed papers stay in business there. Something else is going on.

Re:Hope the get a jury award ...

[browman1]

I've run adwords campaigns before, very useful things. The best thing about them is that they're cheap as chips, and they're instant.

If it's just one company hogging the sponsored links with fakes, then it's more than likely this is a tiny portion of their advertising budget, so probably doesn't stretch to much... have you actually seen the keywords involved here... they wouldn't exactly constitute a major investment on the part of the advertiser... (well, not until about an hour ago anyway)

Re:what next

[delinear]

We should also remember that, before Google came along, it was common for paid-for advertising to be completely mixed in with organic links, and for paid links to be given much more prominence based on this fact. The result was that you'd often have to go three or four pages deep before you found organic links.

With the Google approach there is a clear separation for those who want/understand it and for those who don't, well, at least they get a mix of organic and paid links on every page without having to wade through pages of paid links first.